Krimel --
> Ham,
> Just to be clear I would say you have not answered even one
> of the questions and in fact don't show evidence of
> understanding most of them. Feel free to try again.
You're not easily satisfied, are you, Krimel?
Do I get extra points for trying again?
>1. You claim to be addressing epistemology or how do we know
> things and yet you do so in terms of things that can not be known.
> If what you are talking about can not be known how can you claim
> to be talking about epistemology?
Why won't you answer MY questions? I asked you to name the terms you didn't
understand.
Otherwise, how can I know what you're challenging?
> My questions are not specific to this thread. As I understand
> your epistemology you claim we derive knowledge through the
> negation of essence; relational valuation and all that. If you are
> claiming that epistemology is not a concern of yours, ok, my bad.
Again, I did not make such a claim. We gain knowledge from our intellectual
apprehension of the relational world which, in turn, is our construct of
Value. Objective knowledge is universal because the value pattern we
experience is the same for all cognizant creatures.
>2. You claim to have developed an ontology, or statements about
> what exists. But you do so in terms of ideas that can not exist.
> If what you are talking about can not exist, how does what you
> are saying qualify as ontology?
Ideas exist in the human mind as concepts. The Easter Bunny is such an
concept. So is evolution. The idea that reality is being in the world is
another. All of these ideas exist, and my ontology can account for their
appearance. (I can use the term "cosmology" if you object to ontology.)
[Ham, previously]:
> My thesis is that existence is a perceived division of Essence, hence
> the source of what we experience (i.e., what exists) is non-existent
> potentiality. Despite the awkwardness in terminology, I define
> existence as that which is experienced in time and space, and the
> absolute source as Essence.
[Krimel]:
> Exactly, you explain what does exist only in terms of what does not.
> You have never, to my knowledge, explained why the absolute essence
> is needed to account for anything or how it adds to our understanding.
Essence is needed for something to exist. Reason: Nothing comes from
nothing.
Metaphysical philosophers understand this. Nihilists refuse to.
> 3. You speak of time without regard for what time is or how it works.
> You seem to think it is optional. How can you expect to derive truth
> from error?
Time is the perceived change or motion that results from our serialized
experience of reality. Events -- "the point at which subject and object
meet" -- defines our experience of a phenomenon in time and space. No truth
or falsity is implied here; it is an epistemological concept.
> But the question remains how to you expect to derive truth
> by ignoring it. You make statement about time that are at odds
> with what time is from both the physical and philosophic point of
> view. Time is not static, is not a fate accompli, it can not be
> rewound and fast forwarded even by God himself. You can not
> just define it to suit your own purposes.
Why not? Didn't Pirsig define four levels to suit his purposes? What truth
am I ignoring? Yes, we are aware of change and motion in our experience of
existence. But that does not validate time as a truth.
> In modern usage the term hypothesis means a proposal submitted
> for evaluation. In today's world that would mean a testable proposal
> verifiable through empirical methods. Even in an older sense a
> hypothesis must withstand reasoned scrutiny. Since your 'hypothesis'
> rests neither on evidence or reason how does it qualify as a hypothesis at
> all?
I think you're referring to scientific hypotheses, which are validated by
universal consensus. Metaphysical hypotheses may be subjected to "reasoned
scrutiny", but they are incapable of empirical validation.
> 4. You claim that much of what you say is beyond logic and reason
> and yet you use something almost like reason to justify it. What's the
> point of that?
All philosophy is theoretical, and all theory is supported by "something
like reason", be it logic or introspective intuition. If you can't
consider a plausible concept without seeing the proof, stay out of the
philosopher's den.
> Or I might ask for an example of a philosophy that uses reason
> and logic to deny the value of reason and logic and is taken seriously.
That's just asinine, Krimel. I deny the access by human beings to absolute
truth, but nowhere do I deny the value of reason and logic.
> 5. You seem passionate about convincing others that you are
> on to something and yet you use purposefully obscure terms.
> Do you truly think you are adding precision with all that double negation?
[Ham, previously]:
> I define all my terms, as you can see in #2 [corrected] above, for
> example.
> The fact that they may be unfamiliar to you doesn't make them "obscure".
> My aim is to be clear and consistent. (Evidently I've failed in the
> former.)
[Krimel]:
> 6. How do respond to the criticism that your conclusions are
> driving your arguments not flowing from them. I would say that
> what you are doing is not philosophy at all but apologetics.
If someone insists on nit-picking my philosophy to death, I plead "no
contest". Why should I waste my time defending my position when my accuser
only wants to argue over technicalities?
> I appreciate that but still would like to know how you see
> your philosophy as differing from apologetics?
Cite me an example of an "apologetic" statement you think I've made, and
I'll address it
> Again this all just seems like a lot of effort to justify acceptance of a
> primary source. You are not proposing a primary source to fill a
> god shaped whole in our understanding. You appear to be making
> a rationalization for resurrecting a medieval notion of god. See question
> 6.
For the atheist, any transcendent concept is a medieval notion of god.
Look Krimel, this is not an inquisition and I'm not forcing my ideas on you.
If what I've written has no value to you, and you only want to denounce it,
why pose questions to me?
It would seem that your philosophical position is intractable. Since mine
is too, we're both wasting our time.
--Ham
===============================================
> [Ham]
> Existence is not a solipsism, however, inasmuch as our
> experience conforms to a reality whose properties and dynamics are
> apprehended universally.
>
> [Krimel]
> This does not provide a reason argument against solipsism. As I have never
> heard a compelling argument against solipsism I would truly love too hear
> one. On what basis can you say that there is an 'our' or that we have
> experience in common. The point of solipsism is that I am constructing
> reality in my head. Other people are as much a construction of that
> reality
> as the laws of physics. Saying that existence is not solipsism does not
> address the issue. In order to dismiss solipsism you have to provide a
> reason or evidence that there is something in existence outside of your
> own
> head.
>
> [Ham]
> I do not say that existence is the only reality, but only that it is man's
> reality. Things-in-themselves are phenomena in the minds of man.
>
> [Krimel]
> It is hard enough to 'prove' one reality without having to deal with
> multiple realities. But 'phenomena in the minds of men' is exactly what
> TiTs
> are not. You have this completely backward. The reason we can not have
> direct knowledge of TiTs is precisely because all that we have is
> knowledge
> of is what is in our own heads.
>
> [Ham]
> In Pirsig's SODV paper, he wrote: "The very existence of subject and
> object
>
> themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the
> cause
>
> of the subjects and objects." He also defines the event as "the point at
> which subject and object meet." If the event is our sense of Quality
> (which
>
> he does equate with Value), then it follows that we construct subjects and
> objects from Value. At least, that's how I interpret these statements.
> As
> far as they go, they support my ontology perfectly.
>
> {Krimel]
> I think you are misunderstanding this and you are not alone. We construct
> our individual internal reality by deducing consistent patterns from our
> experience. Pirsig is claiming that we extract our understanding of our
> experience through a deductive process and that we derive an understanding
> of subject and object in this way. This only addresses our construction of
> reality not reality or TiTs, those are forever outside of our experience.
>
> [Ham]
> Objective knowledge is useful for pragmatic applications in a
> relational world. It doesn't lead us to wisdom or metaphysical
> understanding.
>
> [Krimel]
> There is not such thing as objective knowledge in this sense. There is my
> knowledge and your knowledge; two sets of subjective knowledge. Since
> neither of us has direct knowledge of 'objects' in a 'real' world.
> 'Reality'
> is a consensual hallucination. But we can validate the consistency of this
> share hallucination though mutual agreement. I believe this construction
> of
> mutual agreement gets us all closer to a better understanding of TiTs.
> What
> you proposes offers not even the potential of consensus.
>
>> [Krimel]
>> But this just gets back to your view that all of this can be ignored that
>> philosophy has no obligation to 'save the appearance.' Clearly I think
>> this is misguided.
>
> [Ham]
> Clearly, you have a right to your opinion.
>
> [Krimel]
> But I am still interested in why you think we should take seriously a
> 'philosophy' that does not 'save the appearances'.
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
